Yes No Share to Facebook
Judicial Decision Reasons
The Requirement of an Explanation of the What and Why
Last Updated: August 09 2026
Question: Is a Small Claims Court judge required to give reasons explaining the decision, or can they just announce the result?
Answer: Bulat Paralegal Service can help you understand whether a Small Claims Court decision must include the “what” and the “why,” because Ontario judges, including those in Small Claims Court, are expected to provide reasons sufficient to let the parties understand the legal basis for the outcome and to allow meaningful appeal review, even though the reasons may be brief given the court’s informal process and higher volume; for example, courts have emphasized that Small Claims reasons must be clear enough to show what was decided and why, citing Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corp., 2015 ONCA 520, and Doerr v. Sterling Paralegal, 2014 ONSC 2335. If you’re dealing with a decision that feels unclear or you’re considering an appeal, contact (705) 664-0334 to discuss your situation with a Ontario paralegal and get help assessing what the reasons need to cover and what your next steps could be.
Is a Small Claims Court Judge Required to Provide An Explanation For a Decision?
Court Decisions, Even Small Claims Court Decisions, Must be Explained With the Reasoning For the Decision Provided By the Judge.
Understanding the Requirement of Reasons Within Judicial Decisions Including Small Claims Court Cases
A judge of any court, even the Small Claims court, is required to provide an explanation that explains what decision is made and why the decision is made. Judicial reasons ensure that the parties to the litigation understand the legal basis for the decisions made as well as enable a review, if necessary, within the process of an Appeal.
The Law
Judges, including Small Claims Court judges, carry the duty of providing the reasoning upon which a judicial decision was made. The requirement of a reasoning was stated in Elnasr v. Mostafa, 2022 ONSC 1735, where it was said:
[28] In assessing the sufficiency of the Deputy Judge’s Reasons, I acknowledge the tremendous volume of matters in the Small Claims Court as well as the informal nature of the Small Claims Court. As stated in Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corp. No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520, 389 DLR (4th) 711, at paras. 34 and 35:
[34] The Small Claims Court is mandated under s. 25 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, to “hear and determine in a summary way all questions of law and fact and may make such order as is considered just and agreeable to good conscience.” The Small Claims Court plays a vital role in the administration of justice in the province by ensuring meaningful and cost effective access to justice for cases involving relatively modest claims for damages. In order to meet its mandate, the Small Claims Court’s process and procedures are designed to ensure that it can handle a large volume of cases in an efficient and economical manner.
[35] Reasons from the Small Claims Court must be sufficiently clear to permit judicial review on appeal. They must explain to the litigants what has been decided and why: Doerr v. Sterling Paralegal, 2014 ONSC 2335, at paras. 17-19. However, appellate consideration of Small Claims Court reasons must recognize the informal nature of that court, as well as the volume of cases it handles and its statutory mandate to deal with these cases efficiently. In short, in assessing the adequacy of the reasons, context matters: Massoudinia v. Volfson, 2013 ONCA 29, at para. 9. Just as oral reasons will not necessarily be as detailed as written reasons, reasons from the Small Claims Court will not always be as thorough as those in Superior Court decisions. Failing to take the Small Claims Court context into account only serves to restrict access to justice by unnecessarily imparting formality and delay into a legal process that is designed to be informal and efficient.
[29] Or, in other words, to permit meaningful appellate review, the reasons must adequately express “what” was decided and “why” it was decided, see: Maple Ridge, at para. 24; Law Society of Upper Canada v. Neinstein, 2010 ONCA 193, at para. 61.
[30] If the reasons are not sufficiently detailed to understand “the what” and “the why” for the decision under review, then this is an error in law and the standard of review is correctness, see Maple Ridge, at para 22; Barbieri v. Mastronardi, 2014 ONCA 416, at para. 22.
Conclusion
A judge in a Small Claims Court case is required explain a judicial decisions by providing reasons for the decision. While the explanation of reasons in a Small Claims Court case may be brief compared to explanations expected from higher courts, the explanation must be sufficient to enable review by an Appeal court.
NOTE: A considerable number of online searches that include “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” often indicate a pressing need for capable legal support instead of a particular professional designation. In Ontario, the same Law Society that regulates lawyers also oversees licensed paralegals, who are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation cases. Advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise are vital components of this position. Bulat Paralegal Service provides legal representation within its sanctioned scope, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and persuasive advocacy aimed at securing efficient and favourable resolutions for clients.